{"title":"通过药剂师主导的文化审查和阿尔伯塔省的后续计划,对急诊科抗菌药物管理进行多中心审查。","authors":"Ivy Nhan, Tracy Chin, Elissa Rennert-May, Thomas Brownlee, Micheal Guirguis, Irina Rajakumar","doi":"10.1007/s43678-025-00940-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In some emergency departments (EDs), pharmacists review and follow-up on microbiological test results for recently discharged patients, intervening when empiric therapy is missing or inadequate to ensure appropriate antimicrobial use. Currently, this practice is not well described in Canada. Characterizing these ED pharmacist activities can help identify antimicrobial stewardship opportunities and allow for more tailored education and training.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to describe culture review and follow-up pharmacy practice in terms of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Secondary objectives included describing the types of cultures being managed and the antimicrobials prescribed empirically and post-culture review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review was conducted using pharmacist workload tracking documentation to identify patients with eligible cultures from six EDs in Alberta.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred cultures were included in this study, and one hundred twenty-nine interventions (40.7% of all cultures reviewed) were performed by ED pharmacists. Initiation of therapy was the most common (33.3%), followed by tailoring therapy (21.7%). Urine cultures were predominant (55.7%), and the antibiotics most prescribed, empirically, and post-culture for urine, were cefixime (44%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (34%), respectively. Five patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria were treated with antibiotics. Five patients with skin and soft tissue infections were treated with dual oral antibiotics when culture and sensitivity results indicated monotherapy would have been sufficient. Eight extra days of cefixime therapy were prescribed due to unaccounted doses administered in the ED.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the critical role of ED pharmacists in culture review and follow-up activities and their contributions to antimicrobial stewardship. By characterizing culture review and follow-up practices, several opportunities for minimizing unnecessary antimicrobial use were identified. These findings will help inform the development of targeted education and training programs to help strengthen the stewardship capabilities of ED pharmacists and prescribers.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multicenter review of antimicrobial stewardship in the emergency department through pharmacist-led culture review and follow-up programs in Alberta.\",\"authors\":\"Ivy Nhan, Tracy Chin, Elissa Rennert-May, Thomas Brownlee, Micheal Guirguis, Irina Rajakumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43678-025-00940-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In some emergency departments (EDs), pharmacists review and follow-up on microbiological test results for recently discharged patients, intervening when empiric therapy is missing or inadequate to ensure appropriate antimicrobial use. Currently, this practice is not well described in Canada. Characterizing these ED pharmacist activities can help identify antimicrobial stewardship opportunities and allow for more tailored education and training.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of this study was to describe culture review and follow-up pharmacy practice in terms of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Secondary objectives included describing the types of cultures being managed and the antimicrobials prescribed empirically and post-culture review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review was conducted using pharmacist workload tracking documentation to identify patients with eligible cultures from six EDs in Alberta.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred cultures were included in this study, and one hundred twenty-nine interventions (40.7% of all cultures reviewed) were performed by ED pharmacists. Initiation of therapy was the most common (33.3%), followed by tailoring therapy (21.7%). Urine cultures were predominant (55.7%), and the antibiotics most prescribed, empirically, and post-culture for urine, were cefixime (44%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (34%), respectively. Five patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria were treated with antibiotics. Five patients with skin and soft tissue infections were treated with dual oral antibiotics when culture and sensitivity results indicated monotherapy would have been sufficient. Eight extra days of cefixime therapy were prescribed due to unaccounted doses administered in the ED.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the critical role of ED pharmacists in culture review and follow-up activities and their contributions to antimicrobial stewardship. By characterizing culture review and follow-up practices, several opportunities for minimizing unnecessary antimicrobial use were identified. These findings will help inform the development of targeted education and training programs to help strengthen the stewardship capabilities of ED pharmacists and prescribers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93937,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CJEM\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CJEM\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-00940-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-00940-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Multicenter review of antimicrobial stewardship in the emergency department through pharmacist-led culture review and follow-up programs in Alberta.
Background: In some emergency departments (EDs), pharmacists review and follow-up on microbiological test results for recently discharged patients, intervening when empiric therapy is missing or inadequate to ensure appropriate antimicrobial use. Currently, this practice is not well described in Canada. Characterizing these ED pharmacist activities can help identify antimicrobial stewardship opportunities and allow for more tailored education and training.
Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to describe culture review and follow-up pharmacy practice in terms of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. Secondary objectives included describing the types of cultures being managed and the antimicrobials prescribed empirically and post-culture review.
Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted using pharmacist workload tracking documentation to identify patients with eligible cultures from six EDs in Alberta.
Results: Three hundred cultures were included in this study, and one hundred twenty-nine interventions (40.7% of all cultures reviewed) were performed by ED pharmacists. Initiation of therapy was the most common (33.3%), followed by tailoring therapy (21.7%). Urine cultures were predominant (55.7%), and the antibiotics most prescribed, empirically, and post-culture for urine, were cefixime (44%) and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (34%), respectively. Five patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria were treated with antibiotics. Five patients with skin and soft tissue infections were treated with dual oral antibiotics when culture and sensitivity results indicated monotherapy would have been sufficient. Eight extra days of cefixime therapy were prescribed due to unaccounted doses administered in the ED.
Conclusion: This study highlights the critical role of ED pharmacists in culture review and follow-up activities and their contributions to antimicrobial stewardship. By characterizing culture review and follow-up practices, several opportunities for minimizing unnecessary antimicrobial use were identified. These findings will help inform the development of targeted education and training programs to help strengthen the stewardship capabilities of ED pharmacists and prescribers.